ABSTRACT
Advanced technological change in automation and AI systems today has shifted at a higher rate, posing basic questions as to how these changes impact labor legislation for global organizations and international legal frameworks. This is so since as technologies and autonomy extend them more to do human work in as much as possible, bearing its repercussions on employment rights and regulations, the security of job and workforce regulations is a big issue. Thus, the purpose of this paper lies in discussing what current legal regulation of labor is available, what concerns emerge when applying automation, and if the current laws are capable of operating in the new technologically progressive labor market. It also considers the conclusions that can be made by jurists on the matter as well as National Social and Economic Security changes expected to be expected to safeguard employees’ interests in this environment.
KEYWORDS: Automation, Labor Laws, Workforce, Artificial Intelligence, Legal Framework
INTRODUCTION
AI and related technologies are advancing automation to deeply penetrate the global workforce or bring and propel. Outsourcing has adopted this kind of scenario more and more work has been given to machines with more efficiency and productivity achieved in the process. By incorporating automation in manufacturing technology, sales, and perhaps even marketing, which absorbs labor in designing repetitive work, is eradicated automatically. Although there is relative benefit in such technologies like automation in terms of reduction of cost in production and accuracy, there are many challenges that comes along with the technology in relation to labor laws.
The expansion of robotics is surely going to decimate millions of employees predominantly those from regions where business-related activities can without much difficulty be mechanized. Thirdly, it also promotes generation of temporary, freelance, and contract employment, which is often described less security than permanent employment position. Given the high level of technology and the increased dynamics within the work force environment, the present laws as they aim at protecting the human employees in organizations, fail in the task. Thereby, there is what we have a high need for a change in the laws of employment to safeguard the struggling employees in this new market. This paper raises scrutinizes the main legislation relating to automation and outlines the major gaps in legal regulation, the new challenges arising from technological advancement, and possible tendencies in the future of workforce governance in relation to automation.
IMPACT OF AUTOMATION ON EMPLOYMENT
AI and development of the robots are revolutionizing the whole idea of work. The McKinsey Global Institute suggests that up to 25% of global occupations could be automated by 2030. Manufacturing, logistics, call center personnel including the shopping mall, and industries most of which are being affected by repetitive tasks handled by artificial intelligence. While there are new jobs associated with artificial intelligence and robotics as well as data science, there is the worry that these jobs’ skills are complicated and many employees on the receiving end may lack in those skills.
Automation presents a unique set of challenges for labor laws:
Job Displacement and Unemployment: As we see machines taking over human labor, proper regulation of employment has to be a consideration of labor laws. Present-day legislations are mainly centered on safeguarding employees within organized employment status, that is, a form of employment that is slowly becoming outdated.
Gig Economy and Precarious Work: To this effect, this new dismal economy is also characterized by an increase in the number of freelancers’ work which is not well protected like companies’ full-time employees. This means current labor laws would require an amendment to afford gig employers the rights gig workers should enjoy such as quality health care, wages, and social security.
Wage Inequality: That is, wage inequality is exacerbated with those workers in industries that offer automation services or products benefitting disproportionately than workers in industries that are likely to face job automation.
LEGAL PROVISIONS AND FRAMEWORK
The majority of the laws of employment and labor rights have been developed under conventional employment which is now facing danger from Automation. As automation transforms industries, the following legal provisions and sections from various statutes must be examined for their relevance and adaptability to the changing labor landscape:
- Act of Industrial Disputes 1947 (India)
Section 25F: This section deals with remuneration and other requirements concerning them during cases of redundancy (dismissal). However mass retrenchment owing to the automation and use of machines regularly happens in the current society hence the need to reform retrenchment.
Section 2(s): Explains what it means by “workman” and includes every employee who does manual, clerical, or technical job. This is a problem for this definition particularly when work is automated and less human effort is required.
- Code on Social Security, 2020 (India)
Section 2(78): Describes who an employee is and plays an essential role in identifying people who are eligible for social security benefits. Thus, while many displaced or gig economy or nontraditional workers, may not meet this definition, societies and economies are increasingly characterized by such people.
Chapter V: Concerns the welfare of employees in terms of provident fund, gratuity, and insurance. However, these protections are normally extended to cover gig workers or those made unemployed utilizing automation.
- Minimum Wages Act 1948
Section 3: Demands that there should be set minimum wages in relation to types of employment. It may be argued that with the increasing automation of conventional careers, the popularity of this section may gradually fade, namely in those fields where human work is supplemented with robots.
- BREAKING THE WAGE FIXATION: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 1938 (U.S.A.).
Section 6: Sets minimum wage thresholds, but because of automation, uncertainty exists as to whether or not contractual provisions like such a minimum wage would be mandated when industries are dominated by robots or AI.
Section 13: Permits some employees to be paid below minimum wage and not be entitled to any overtime payment, a part that has grown relevant because many employers are gradually sourcing for robotic means to do the work of employees.
- Employment Rights Act United Kingdom Employment Rights Act of 1996
Section 94: Gives workers Rights against unfair dismissal, but AI layout dismissals fall in a gray area where the legal law has not clarified whether dismissal due to AI qualifies as unfair.
Section 135: Provides for payment during redundancy. Since automation is increasingly being associated with employment cuts, this might be helpful to revise this section to address issues of workers who lost their jobs due to automation.
- The Code on Wages, 2019 (India)
Section 9: Sets up employment laws on wages for workers regardless of the industry, but as industries get more mechanized, there are likely to be fewer employment opportunities that can afford the wage protections to its employees.
Section 10: Concerns payment of wages and their frequency of adjustment a sensitive aspect that will need some adjustments whenever automated positions expand and scenarios surrounding wages start to impact a reduced number of employees.
- ILO Conventions are international labor standards and are classified into four main groups, which include please refer to the following:
ILO Convention No. 95 (Protection of Wages Convention, 1949): Values are value therefore but biases towards timely wage payment to employees may render more traditional wage employees jobless, thus requiring safety nets such as universal basic income.
ILO Convention No. 122 (Employment Policy Convention, 1964): Works on the tenets of full, productive, and freely chosen employment easier said than done in a future that is inclined to be characterized by automation.
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)
Another influential judgment of the Supreme Court enlarged the scope of the term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 by including a variety of operations. According to the Court, the word “industry” should be given a broad meaning to refer to all business undertakings that are carried out systematically and on behalf of employers or other persons. As traditional employment is threatened by automation this judgment remains significant as it provides employment protection to workers in different sectors and may, therefore, require reinterpretation given the changing industry environments as they adopt automation and technology.
Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Even though this case is a right-to-work case this is quite important in labor law because it affirmed the contention that the Right to Life means the Right to Livelihood’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Since automation may lead to job losses in the millions, this judgment brings out the government’s responsibility to guarantee that displaced workers are framed by proper legal and welfare instruments.
Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd. (1992)
However, in this particular case, The Supreme Court of India insists that the workers can be dismissed as per the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 if dismissal is in connection to automation or technological advancement. In the judgment, it is clear that even where engaging new technologies means sacking workers, the legal working conditions as provided in the labor laws need to be complied with. This case is a clear example of why legislation must prevail in response to automation without the elimination of workers’ voices.
SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS
To future-proof labor laws in an era of automation, significant amendments are necessary:
Inclusion of Gig Workers: It is important for gig and freelance workers to be considered as employees. Reform in labour laws should entitle them with similar rights as those accorded to individuals in welformed structures of employment.
Reskilling and Retraining Initiatives: Anticipated restriction in employee demand due to automation requires there to be legislation that compels employers and governments to facilitate the training of displaced workers to fit the new market demands.
Universal Basic Income (UBI): Today many jurists and economists speak about UBI as a way to counteract the threat of unemployment that arises from automation. These laws that can provided such safety nets such as the UBI could be useful in cushioning the athe economy loss brought by unemployment.
Data Privacy and Surveillance: In the process of extending and expanding the labor laws in line with the enhanced automation and use of data in workplaces, certain related highlights or measures should also cover privacy and data from employers interference or intrusion.
CONCLUSION
The rise of automation presents both opportunities and challenges for the global workforce. While automation drives productivity, reduces costs, and improves efficiency, it also threatens the livelihoods of millions of workers, particularly in sectors reliant on routine, repetitive tasks. Existing labor laws, which were primarily designed to protect human workers in traditional employment structures, are increasingly inadequate to address the complexities introduced by automation.
The legal framework must evolve to safeguard the rights of workers in this changing environment. Amendments are necessary to extend protections to gig workers, offer reskilling opportunities for displaced employees, and explore welfare measures like Universal Basic Income (UBI) to mitigate automation’s impact on unemployment and wage inequality. Moreover, legal provisions must also address issues such as data privacy and employee surveillance in automated workplaces.
Jurists and policymakers must recognize that automation is not only reshaping industries but also fundamentally altering the nature of employment. As machines take over more jobs, labor laws must be reformed to ensure that workers are not left vulnerable in an increasingly automated world. A proactive and adaptive legal approach is essential to balance technological progress with the protection of human rights in the labor market.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: PAYAL DEVNANI
